…and this is a 
Another accolade from a 'prestigious' journal
Category: Creationism
Posted on: August 21, 2006 12:26 PM, by PZ Myers
The June/July issue of Creation Matters, the house organ of the Creation Research Society, has an article about…ME. Guess what?
They don't like me. Not one bit.
I'm so crushed that I'm going to post the entire article below the fold, and I think I may have to have a party tonight. It's always such an honor to be hated by people who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, was conjured into existence in six days, and that not believing their god appeared on Earth, like Zeus before Leda, means your non-existent soul will burn in hell forever.
Nature Gives Top Blog Honors to Radical Atheists
P . Z. Myers (U of Minnesota) has been one of the most foul-mouthed critics of creation, intelligent design and religion in general. He has said that Abraham was worse than Hitler (Myers, 2005c). He has ridiculed the crucifixion of Christ (Myers, 2005d). His opinion on how to treat anti-evolutionists (Myers, 2005b):
I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.
Yet this man's blog,Pharyngula, was given top honors by Nature in its list of the the five top science blogs on the Internet (Anonymous, 2006). Second with the silver medal was Panda's Thumb, another strongly anti-ID blog to which Myers also contributes. Once, he responded on Panda's Thumb about the stridency of his remarks (Myers, 2005a):
Please don't try to tell me that you object to the tone of our complaints. Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard [sic] members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.
Now you know where Nature's heart is. It has not changed much since it originated as Darwin's mouthpiece in 1867, except that before evolution gained absolute power, they had to talk nicer and pretend to be interested in truth. This does not disparage the many working scientists, who submit their papers faithfully for publication to as wide an audience as possible, when they have done good lab work in their specialty; but it shows you the mindset of the editorial board. If they endorse Myers' kind of attitude as the way to carry on scientific discussions of controversial issues, do they have a case?
Anonymous. 2006. Top five science blogs. news@nature.com, posted 5 July. www.nature.com/news/2006/060703/full/442009a.html
Myers, P.Z. 2005a. Comment #35130. Panda's Thumb, posted 14 June. www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/06/a_new_recruit.html#comment- 35130
Myers, P.Z. 2005b. Perspective. Pharyngula, posted 4 August. http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/
Myers, P.Z. 2005c. So let's make sure it doesn't get that bad here. Pharyngula, posted 10 December. http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/so_lets_make_sure_it_doesnt _get_that_bad_here/
Myers, P.Z. 2005d. Benny was kind of passionate, I guess. Pharyngula, posted 11 December. http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/benny_was_kind_of_passiona te_i_guess/
Comments
"scientific discussions of controversial issues"???
That's a good one!
Posted by: Alex | August 21, 2006 12:34 PM
Any enemy of my enemy is my friend. Congratulations PZ! You must be so proud!
Posted by: Ed Deneke | August 21, 2006 12:34 PM
Congratulations!
Posted by: j | August 21, 2006 12:34 PM
RADICAL ATHEISTS!? OH NOES!!!!!
Posted by: Nymphalidae | August 21, 2006 12:36 PM
Can someone explain why they [sic]ced "many schoolboard members." I've always been a bad proofreader - am I missing something here?
Oh, and congrats PZ - this is a great honor!
Posted by: Theron | August 21, 2006 12:38 PM
Congrats!
Posted by: quork | August 21, 2006 12:39 PM
School board is two words. And verbing [sic] is very clever indeed.
Posted by: j | August 21, 2006 12:39 PM
I seethe with jealousy!
A proud day indeed.
Posted by: jbark | August 21, 2006 12:40 PM
An endorsement from Nature is pretty sweet, but not nearly so sweet as an undorsement from the Creation Research Society. Hooray for you.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | August 21, 2006 12:44 PM
Posted by: quork | August 21, 2006 12:48 PM
you're certainly pissing off all the right people. bravo.
Posted by: The Minstrel Boy(Stephen Benson) | August 21, 2006 12:50 PM
Nicely played, sir! I will raise a toast in your honor this very afternoon!
Thanks for reading!
Kev
Posted by: VegasKev | August 21, 2006 12:53 PM
Congratulations! I'm so jealous I could just spit!
Posted by: waldteufel | August 21, 2006 12:57 PM
"Yet this man's blog,Pharyngula, was given top honors by Nature in its list of the the five top science blogs on the Internet (Anonymous, 2006). Second with the silver medal was Panda's Thumb, another strongly anti-ID blog to which Myers also contributes."
Hold on wasn't that Nature article based on Technocrati rankings? Creationists are even more desperate to show that science is really an atheist conspiracy than I thought.
Posted by: Chris Hyland | August 21, 2006 1:01 PM
Oh, by the way: notice the headline talks about "radical atheists," plural, yet the only people they talk about are me and the contributors to the Panda's Thumb. Congratulations are therefore also due to those namby-pamby believers at PT, who have apparently also now shed their superstitious follies and joined me in firebreathing godlessness.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 1:08 PM
"except that before evolution gained absolute power, they had to talk nicer and pretend to be interested in truth"...
Do they mix up Nature with DI here or is this a bonafide case of "the pot calling the kettle black"?
Posted by: Rienk | August 21, 2006 1:10 PM
Congratulations! A richly deserved honour.
Posted by: DV8 2XL | August 21, 2006 1:13 PM
Congratulations PZ! Hey CRS - Please put me down for some of that Crucifixion Ridicule too!
Posted by: J-Dog | August 21, 2006 1:23 PM
I always love it when disingenuous, decietful, and lying Creationists pull out the "foul mouthed" card. Hehehehe. Fuck'em. Congrats PZ.
Posted by: King Spirula | August 21, 2006 1:26 PM
In addition to their other nonsense, half of the source links are broken.
Way to go, PZ! When I grow up I hope creationists hate me even half as much as they hate you. So jealous!
Posted by: Timothy | August 21, 2006 1:36 PM
This reminds me of the Mother Jones Radio segment Al Franken played just over a week ago on his show, the one where David Horowitz turns into a simpering mass of ignorance and stupidity on air. Did anyone hear that? If not, you should have, because the Mother Jones Radio show got Horowitz and one of the professors he accuses in his book on the air to settle the score.
When Horowitz was challenged on a quote Horowitz misrepresented from the other guest, one of his "101 worst professors", Horowitz hemmed and hawed, and sounded like the unaccomplished hack he is, and then finally forced out the words: "...I, I, I have never met Mr. (whatever his name was)".
The professor in question should have sued him that moment on the air.
Challenge these people when they defame our educational and scientific leaders. They will fall apart every time, because deep down they know they ain't got a cow pie's worth of crap right about anyone they have chosen to hate.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 21, 2006 1:36 PM
Oh, come on. Isn't that "absolute power" bit wonderful? I had no idea.
My goal now is to become a top level enforcer in the organization with absolute power. Next time GW Bush pops off about evolution, I'm going to send some of the boys--you know, the four-eyed poindexters with bad haircuts--to rough him up with a math lecture or sumfin.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 1:38 PM
I think it's funny that they interpret your words to mean a physical beating (not unlike the one they gave to that poor Kansas professor last year), when in actuality we would all be more than satisfied delivering intellectual blows to their sorry asses.
Posted by: Stephen | August 21, 2006 1:55 PM
So, PZ... How did you get a copy of the newsletter this article is in? The CRS website says you need to be a paying member to view the current newsletter, and to be a paying member, you have to agree to their statement of belief.
Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2006 2:02 PM
Hold on wasn't that Nature article based on Technocrati rankings?
It was indeed -- go read the Nature article (to which the CRS article obligingly provides a link). It's a news article about the most popular science blogs. Nature (a.k.a. "Darwin's mouthpiece", heh) did not accord PZ "top honors" -- we did. But these folks never turn down an excuse, however tenuous, to play the persecution card.
Posted by: Steve Watson | August 21, 2006 2:03 PM
New or old earth creationist Jason?
Are you a subscriber?
A statement of belief? Sounds like the paper you have to sign before entering a "private" speech by Bush.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 21, 2006 2:06 PM
How old do you think the Earth is, Jinxy?
Also:
Total literal, OT and NT -- yes or no?
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 2:08 PM
Hey, I want to be profiled in Creation Matters too! PZ, who's your publicist?
Posted by: Martin Rundkvist | August 21, 2006 2:08 PM
So the best they could do is quote PZ out of context?
. . yeah, that's not transparent and desperate at all . . .
Congrats, PZ!
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | August 21, 2006 2:09 PM
One would think that mocking the crucifiction would be small potatoes compared to PZ's scheme of creating an army of undead cyborg squid men.
Posted by: commissarjs | August 21, 2006 2:10 PM
Hey, I want to be profiled in Creation Matters too! PZ, who's your publicist?
No fooling, shows how much work the rest of us have to do in catching up. Kind of like not making Nixon's enemies list. :-(
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 2:10 PM
Jason -- I guess their security is the result of a grasp of computer science every bit as good as their grasp of the rest of science.
Posted by: just john | August 21, 2006 2:12 PM
you know what the best part is? the excerpts they use of your writing is so damn much better than their pathetic "we're victims!" mewling, even truncuated like that.
except as farce i guess.
Posted by: garth | August 21, 2006 2:12 PM
Would that they publish an article thoughtfully questioning your science rather than your tactics. My guess is they focused on your tactics while completely ignoring your science. You have a lot of important things to say about science. Too bad the people who need to hear it ignore it because of your tactics.
Posted by: squeaky | August 21, 2006 2:14 PM
One would think that mocking the crucifiction would be small potatoes compared to PZ's scheme of creating an army of undead cyborg squid men.
.... and then THEY mock the crucifixion? (Or that particular one -- not that anybody bothers to remember all the other victims of Roman "justice.")
Posted by: just john | August 21, 2006 2:14 PM
I wonder, is there any such thing as a "non-radical atheist"? Certainly it seems more fitting for them to describe themselves as "radical Christians".
I will also put in a word for linguistic civility. Verbal violence only serves to sate one's anger, and never convinces anybody.
Chris Crawford, Doctor of Altiloquence
Posted by: Chris Crawford | August 21, 2006 2:18 PM
All I gotta say is....
Dude, you rock!!
PZ, you are so my hero for the week. =P
Cheers.
Posted by: Fastlane | August 21, 2006 2:18 PM
Woo-Hoo!
I don't see how any scientist could conceive of becoming a member of the Creation Research Society, and yet they do! Unbelievable!
CM says on its membership page:
Several categories of membership are available, each of which requires agreement with the CRS statement of belief. [italics and bold mine]
The statement of belief is preposterous!
CRS Statement of Belief
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Posted by: George | August 21, 2006 2:18 PM
If I got an article like that I would print it on pretty paper, frame it, and hang it on the wall.
Posted by: oldhippie | August 21, 2006 2:20 PM
dude. i want to mock the crucifiction right now.
Jesus walks into a botel, hands the innkeeper three nails and says, "Can you put me up for the night?"
Jesus is hanging on the cross, and peter is standing in the crowd watching him. Jesus calls to him "Peter! Come to me!" and Peter runs forward. The Romans beat him mercilessly with their spears and throw him back. Again, Jesus cries out "Peter! Come to your savior!" and Peter rushes forward, to again be pounded silly by bored roman guards. dazed, he hears Jesus call him once more and surges through the guards, filled with holy strength.
"Yes my lord! What do you need o son of god?!!" he cries, not feeling the horrible wounds covering his body from the multiple savage beatings.
And Jesus spake: "Peter...I can see your house from here."
Posted by: garth | August 21, 2006 2:21 PM
this one is cool. c'n'p'd
This joke by Emo Phillips was voted by a jury of American comedians as #44 out of the "Best 75 Jokes Ever" in GQ Magazine. To do it justice, imagine the two participants becoming increasingly enthusiastic and animated as the conversation progresses. -- Richard Russell
I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on a ledge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
"Well, there's so much to live for." "Like what?" "Well, are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist." "Wow, me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God." "Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1789 or Reformed Baptist Church of God, 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."
I said, "Die, heretic scum!!" And pushed him off the bridge.
Posted by: garth | August 21, 2006 2:26 PM
.... and then THEY mock the crucifixion? (Or that particular one -- not that anybody bothers to remember all the other victims of Roman "justice.")
I love you Spartacus!
Posted by: commissarjs | August 21, 2006 2:29 PM
Hmm... It seems George's obsession with asking me questions I've already answered has rubbed off on Steve. Tragic.
Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2006 2:30 PM
Jumped on the Post button too quick. Meant to answer the one question that was asked that I haven't answered before: no, I'm not a subscriber to the CRS newsletter.
Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2006 2:32 PM
Link to the answer please. Or answer my questions Jason.
Not all of us are familiar with your illustrious past.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 21, 2006 2:32 PM
haha PZ, this is even better than winning the Oscars! I think you need to celebrate with a bottle of champagne.
Posted by: Sunny | August 21, 2006 2:32 PM
Hmm... It seems George's obsession with asking me questions I've already answered has rubbed off on Steve. Tragic.
Jinx, Jinx, Jinx. Why are you SO AFRAID to answer these questions? You're not ASHAMED are you? Seems to me any decent Christian would LOVE to answer these questions time and time again, when surrounded by mocking heathens! What kind of example ARE you?
C'mon Jinxy, prove to us you're not the weasel we think you are!
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 2:33 PM
Would you subsrcibe for free and sign the "belief" statement Jason?
Posted by: Steve_C | August 21, 2006 2:33 PM
hey jason!
Deductive Reasoning
Neighbor 1: "Hi, there, new neighbor, it sure is a nice day to be moving"
New Neighbor: "Yes, it is and people around here seem extremely friendly"
Neighbor 1: "So what is it you do for a living?"
New Neighbor: "I am a professor at the University, I teach deductive reasoning"
Neighbor 1: "Deductive reasoning, what is that?"
New Neighbor: "Let me give you and example. I see you have a dog house out
back. By that I deduce that you have a dog."
Neighbor 1: "That is right"
New Neighbor: "The fact that you have a dog, leads me to deduce that
you have a family."
Neighbor 1: "Right again"
New Neighbor: "Since you have a family I deduce that you have a wife"
Neighbor 1: "Correct"
New Neighbor: "And since you have a wife, I can deduce that you are
heterosexual"
Neighbor 1: "Yup"
New Neighbor: "That is deductive reasoning"
Neighbor 1: "Cool"
Later that same day
Neighbor 1: "Hey, I was talking to that new guy who moved in next door"
Neighbor 2: "Is he a nice guy?"
Neighbor 1: "Yes, and he has an interesting job"
Neighbor 2: "Oh, yeah what does he do?"
Neighbor 1: "He is a professor of deductive reasoning at the University"
Neighbor 2: "Deductive reasoning, what is that?"
Neighbor 1: "Let me give you an example. Do you have a dog house?"
Neighbor 2: "No"
Neighbor 1: "Fag."
Posted by: garth | August 21, 2006 2:33 PM
Dear Jason,
I am relatively new to Pharyngula, although I have lurked for a time before becoming a commenter. Although I read Pharyngula on a daily basis, I fear that I missed the post(s) in which you answered George Cauldron's questions. I apologize for inconveniencing you, but I would really appreciate it if you would answer his questions once again for those of us who missed your response the first time. Thanks so much.
Posted by: j | August 21, 2006 2:35 PM
Many ancient cultures punished the children and spouses of the crime doer. This was widely practised until the enlightenment. The Christian god punishes Adam and all his chidren including future children. That my friends is not a god worth worshipping. Adam ate the apple and that means we need salvation - BULL PUPPU!!!
Posted by: richCares | August 21, 2006 2:35 PM
You mean my "illustrious past" as in "a couple days ago?" I answered your questions (the one about being a subscriber just now, in fact). Search through the past comments yourself for the answer to your other question. I'm not your mommy.
And I answered George's questions before, too.
Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2006 2:35 PM
A clergyman was walking down the street when he came upon a
group of a few boys about 10 years of age, surrounding a dog.
Concerned that the boys were hurting the animal, he went over
and asked them what they were doing.
One of the boys replied, "This dog is an old neighborhood stray.
We take him home with us sometimes, but only one of us can take
him home. So we're having a contest: whichever one of us tells
the biggest lie can take him home today."
Of course, the Reverend was shocked. "You boys shouldn't be
having a contest telling lies!" he exclaimed. He then launched
into a 10-minute sermon against lying, beginning, "Don't you
boys know it's a sin to lie?" and ending with, "Why, when I was
your age, I never told a lie."
There was complete silence for about a minute. As the Reverend
smiled with satisfaction that he'd gotten through to them, the
smallest boy gave a deep sigh. "All right," he said, "give him
the dog."
though technically, all the priest should have to do is show up to win a lying contest
Posted by: garth | August 21, 2006 2:37 PM
Fuck that. I'm in this post now. Don't care enough to search.
You don't care enough to answer.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 21, 2006 2:37 PM
There is controversy surrounding the crucificiton:
"Controversial Christian Faction Believes Jesus Was Nailed To Two Parallel Pieces Of Wood"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46712
And to think after all these years I thought they were bisecting!
Posted by: Alex | August 21, 2006 2:38 PM
Two questions, Jinxy.
a) literal OT/NT -- yes or no?
b) how old? YEC or OEC?
Don't be a weasel, Jinx! You can do it! You don't want us to think you're ASHAMED of your Deeply Held Conservative Christian Convictions, DO you?
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 2:38 PM
Jason said, "...and to be a paying member, you have to agree to their statement of belief."
I, for one, do not see a significant moral quandry in lying to the lying liars. Suscribe anyway, if you want. Their "statement" is no more than a thinly veiled attempt to deflect criticism of their views. If what they say is unassailable fact, why do the insist their readers subscribe to their version of reality?
Posted by: BruceH | August 21, 2006 2:39 PM
Has anyone seen him answer this questions?
Anyone know the answer he gave? I sure don't.
I suspect old earth... but that may be giving him
to much benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 21, 2006 2:41 PM
I'm not afraid or ashamed to answer those or any other questions. But I've answered your questions already either here or elsewhere. If you missed them (either through not paying attention or through the act of someone else deleting my answers), tough luck. I don't answer questions to satisfy the bloated egos of arrogant, insulting blowhards.
Oh, see? I answered those two questions now, too.
Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2006 2:41 PM
The essential Jinx:
Jinx: "I am a deeply religious Christian. Christianity guides my life. I am a better person than any atheist. If you continue to be an atheist, you're going to hell".
Other Person: "Really? What kind of Christian are you?"
Jinx: "I refuse to answer that question. I already told someone several months ago."
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 2:42 PM
"Statement of Belief"....gosh, that doesn't sound like indoctrination now, does it??
Hey, a new book: The brainwashing brainwashers and the brainwashed they brainwash.
Idiots.
Posted by: Alex | August 21, 2006 2:42 PM
Garth:
My favorite has always been:
Q. Why did Jesus die on the cross?
A. Because he forgot his safeword.
(It really puts "The Passion of Christ" into a different light.)
Posted by: Calladus | August 21, 2006 2:43 PM
That argument might have held water had CRS not been allowing non-members to view past newsletters. lol!
Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2006 2:43 PM
I'm not afraid or ashamed to answer those or any other questions. But I've answered your questions already either here or elsewhere.
WHY does that mean you can't take the 10 seconds to answer them NOW, Jinx? You really look like you're ashamed or afraid.
Two questions, Jinxy:
1) a) yes
b) no
2) a) OEC
b) YEC
How easy can it GET?
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 2:44 PM
How hard is it to type OLD or NEW? Or Evo/Devo.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 21, 2006 2:44 PM
Oo! Oo! My favorite Crucifixion joke!
What does 'INRI' stand for?
'I'm Nailed Right In".
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 2:46 PM
by deductive logic, jinx is a clam.
(the safeword is banana)
Posted by: garth | August 21, 2006 2:48 PM
Please point out where I've said I believed any such thing as what I've bolded, George. Oh, that's right. You can't because it's one of your typical lies.
"Other Person" = conveniently timed sock-puppet.
George, you're obviously a fan of Canadian Cynic and have followed his little vendetta against me for a while. Won't he tell you what I answered when he asked the question you're so obsessed with? Are you afraid or ashamed to ask him?
Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2006 2:48 PM
"Controversial Christian Faction Believes Jesus Was Nailed To Two Parallel Pieces Of Wood"
As so often happens in the world of religion, Nature has anticipated Parody: the Jehovah's Witnesses make a big deal about how Jesus wasn't nailed to a literal cross (ie. two timbers joined at right angles), but to a simple stake (or maybe some other configuration). I forget the details of the argument or how they blow it up to be a Big Issue, but it's one of the ways they differentiate themselves from "Christendom".
Posted by: Steve Watson | August 21, 2006 2:50 PM
Fair enough. I'll settle for a pointer to where you answered the questions.
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | August 21, 2006 2:50 PM
"I don't answer questions . . . "
"I already answered . . . "
So, did you give answers or not? If you did, you should be able to produce them.
It's becoming very clear you fear the response to your answers.
Posted by: Lya Kahlo | August 21, 2006 2:51 PM
Why are you SO AFRAID to answer these two simple questions about your Deeply Held Faith? It looks really weird to everyone else, Jinx.
C'mon, little man! If you answer the questions clearly here and now, I WON'T EVER ASK THEM AGAIN!!!
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 2:51 PM
I am so disappointed that I am not personally mentioned in that article that I can barely finish my fried fetus.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 21, 2006 2:51 PM
steve, george, he knows if he states his beliefs he'll just get ripped to shreds. he probably has some crazed ID-ish mishmash garbage stuff, the heretical kind that doesn't even fit into his own worldview, causing some cognitive dissonance.
at least a lot of religionists, despite suffering from mental disorders, don't have to try and ruin science on the way. talk about holding a grudge.
Science: "Religion, you suck. You make no sense."
Religion (under breath): "I will destroy you."
Posted by: garth | August 21, 2006 2:52 PM
Rather noble of you, PZ, not to return in kind. You might have added a few [sic]'s of your own:
Yet this man's blog,Pharyngula, was given top honors by Nature in its list of the the [sic] five top science blogs on the Internet
It has not changed much since it originated as Darwin's mouthpiece in 1867, except that before evolution gained absolute power, they [sic] had to talk nicer [sic] and pretend to be interested in truth.
If they endorse Myers' [sic] kind of attitude as the way to carry on scientific discussions of controversial issues, do they have a case?
Posted by: Billy | August 21, 2006 2:52 PM
I told you why. Are your reading comprehension skills really that poor?
To whom? You? Well, to me, you look like a pathetically obsessed, lazy bigot. I'm sure you don't care what my opinion is about what you look like, though.
Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2006 2:53 PM
steve, george, he knows if he states his beliefs he'll just get ripped to shreds. he probably has some crazed ID-ish mishmash garbage stuff, the heretical kind that doesn't even fit into his own worldview, causing some cognitive dissonance.
Probably true, but I can't imagine what answer Jinx could give that would make us have an even LOWER opinion of him than we do now...
A shame to see such a pompous blowhard Christian who doesn't even have the courage of his convictions. Tsk, tsk.
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 2:54 PM
Wow. You're really lame. I'm here now and you could just say... "I love me some Hovind creationism... it's the best!!! or "I think da earf is like really old and shit... but god is too. I'll go with it's old but god still did it." OR even "I hate PZ's guts but it pains me to admit it, I'm actually an Evolutionist. But I still love me some baby Jesus."
Posted by: Steve_C | August 21, 2006 2:55 PM
i love how jinx takes a comment and its suddenly a LIE! LIE! LIE! Note how he didn't address any of your substance in "the essential jinx"? hi-larious.
Posted by: garth | August 21, 2006 2:55 PM
To whom? You? Well, to me, you look like a pathetically obsessed, lazy bigot. I'm sure you don't care what my opinion is about what you look like, though.
Yes or no, lazy weasel.
I think you're ASHAMED! Prove you're not ashamed! If we're all going to hell for not sharing your beliefs, isn't it your duty as a True Christian to tell us what they are?
C'mon, WITNESS, Jinx!
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 2:57 PM
I don't get it, Jason, you've got three different blogs - hell I have a hard enough time finding time and content for one, I guess you've got more time on your hands than I.
A nice blog entry of your beliefs would be appropriate - then you could just drop a hyperlink everytime you were asked.
That would certainly put us all in our place!
Right?
Posted by: Calladus | August 21, 2006 2:58 PM
"fried fetus"...funny. What kind of dipping sauce?
Posted by: Alex | August 21, 2006 2:58 PM
people who fight a "yes" or "no" answer this hard make me believe they're lying about something, selling something, or so full of shit their eyes are brown. just a hunch, but i think jinx might be ALL THREE! the freakin' trifecta. tres bien, douchebag!
Posted by: garth | August 21, 2006 3:00 PM
My heart swells with pride as yours surely must. The prevaricating creationists and their supporters must attack your tatics. They know that any discussion of science would leave them looking like even bigger fools then they already are. I am highly honored to have shaken your hand. Congratulations Professor Indeed.
Posted by: B. B.Breece | August 21, 2006 3:01 PM
Hey, no fair taunting somebody for not knowing how to post a link.
Posted by: just john | August 21, 2006 3:01 PM
To me it just seems Jason doesn't want to deal with the intellectual frustration that will rain down on him after he states his irrational assertions. It must suck to constantly get pummeled with factual data and empiricle evidence that confounds your world-view.
Or maybe he's finally realizing that just because a person believe's in something with all their heart, doesn't make it true or real.
Or he could just be a deranged lunatic.
Posted by: Alex | August 21, 2006 3:05 PM
just john:
Just use the HTML Cheatsheet. Copy and past the 'Hyperlink' function into your text, then past in the text and the link.
Or, failing that, learn to use Tiny URL (http://tinyurl.com/) and drop in the short, sweet URL that it makes for you.
Good Luck!
Posted by: Calladus | August 21, 2006 3:05 PM
I'm not afraid or ashamed to answer those or any other questions. But I've answered your questions already either here or elsewhere. If you missed them (either through not paying attention or through the act of someone else deleting my answers), tough luck. I don't answer questions to satisfy the bloated egos of arrogant, insulting blowhards.
Sorry, but we've heard similar blather before. And it was all lies.
Pardon us if we consider you a liar, but if you act like a like, quack like a liar, then don't be surprised if we consider you a liar.
You have no integrity, and you sully the name of Christian by claiming to be one.
Posted by: gwangung | August 21, 2006 3:06 PM
I was uneasy with those remarks about the steel-toed boots and brass nuckles the first time I saw them. They are a problem because, if we want to dun Ann Coulter for her advocacy of violence it gives her quite a bit of wiggle room.
Remember our enemies are literalists - it's in their charter. Not saying we must then be confined to literalism but there's no sense setting up the need to defend tangents.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | August 21, 2006 3:06 PM
"I don't answer questions to satisfy the bloated egos of arrogant, insulting blowhards."
Irony, thy name is Jason.
Posted by: paleotn | August 21, 2006 3:06 PM